Ancient Aliens Testable Predictions

I have often heard UFO researchers say that UFO research hasn't made as much progress as they may have hoped because the field hasn't fully evolved
into a legitimate field of study. I believe that some of the reasons for this is that the evidence for the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial
beings visiting earth is unreliable.

Let's make an analogy, imagine you are looking for a signal in a large amount of very noisy data, it could be a radio signal, or a television signal,
etc. To complicate things the nature of the signal is random, both in time and in space and is almost indistinguishable from the noise. Elementary
information theory tells us that it is nearly impossible to “extract” a signal where the noise power is nearly equal to the power of the signal.
Even if we try to filter the signal we can never tell if what is left is the actual signal, or simply noise that by random chance happens to have the
proper characteristics to get through the filters.

In UFO research the noise are reports that can be explained as hoaxes, natural phenomena, human made aerial vehicles, etc. The signal are reports of
actual EBE vehicles, the problem is that the signal is random both in space and time, and is very similar to the noise. If we try to “filter” the
signal, meaning if we try to get rid of reports that can explained away, we can't be sure that what is left over is actual EBE evidence, or a mixture
of real EBE evidence and reports that can be explained away but, by random chance, happens to have the same characteristics as EBE evidence. - The UFO
legitimacy problem is one of noise.

We can't control the EBE signal, but we can control the noise. So how do we lower or get rid of the noise? How do we “lower” natural phenomena,
aerial vehicles, and hoaxes? Like any good researcher we try to construct a situation where it is impossible or very difficult for extraneous
phenomena to occur, yet allows the phenomena we are looking for a good chance to occur. Also like any good researcher they design, build, and test
their OWN equipment and take their OWN data. To convince other researchers and skeptics that the data the researchers took truly represents what the
researchers were looking for, full descriptions of the equipment used should be made publicly available. The detail should be sufficient that if
another researcher wants to test your results independently, the researcher could build their own satellite and test the hypothesis for themselves.
Furthermore if some skeptics claim the data is simply a hardware or software malfunction the onus is on them to show you exactly how it could have
happened and to prove to you that it did happen. (It's always a good idea to keep records of equipment status)

To avoid accusations of falsifying data, the satellite can transmit unencrypted raw data back to earth so that anyone with the proper equipment can
receive and decode the data for themselves. This may increase the number of hoaxsters who may claim that your data is false, but since anyone with the
proper equipment could have received the raw data chances are that many honest people received the data and can verify that the data is accurate. We
want to manage the situation in such a way that a hoaxster would be equivalent to someone denying something that the entire world saw live.

So how do we reduce the noise, one word – space. Since it is difficult for any one person to get into space the number of hoaxes is almost zero (If
you take your OWN data, with your OWN equipment), since there is no atmosphere the natural phenomena has a very different character and is easier to
rule out, now there are human made vehicles in space, which may contribute to noise, but there are far fewer space vehicles per volume than aerial
vehicles in the atmosphere on earth. In addition human made space vehicles (as far as we know) are limited by present rocket technology so they move
in a certain manner that may be easier to distinguish from EBE vehicles.

So I propose to design, build, and test our own satellites. We have ubiquitous computing power many orders of magnitude more powerful than in the
60's, 70's, or 80's, the software to design, build, simulate, and test the hardware is ubiquitous and low cost. We also have the talent to design
the hardware, heck in certain parts of the country you can find people experts at designing all the components of the satellite. Also the technology
to build a viable satellite is ubiquitous, you can literally build a satellite using “off the shelf technology”, some modern digital cameras and
video recorders are of such high quality with high pixel densities making them excellent ways to explore space for EBE vehicles. The communication
technology is quite literally ubiquitous, and so is digital design so with all these resources we can build an inexpensive satellite capable of
exploring space for EBE vehicles. It may also be possible to perform some rudimentary spectroscopy on the towers, to determine their composition.

There are many details that must be addressed before the mission can have a chance of being successful.

1. What areas of the moon should be imaged.
2. What resolution do we desire, how many meters/pixel?
3. What are the lighting conditions like? What is the frequency distribution of the light reflected from the surface of the moon? What is the
intensity of the light? Etc.
4. What type of camera is best suited for these conditions? What type of optics do we need to use to achieve the desired resolution?
5. What orbit must we maneuver the satellite to orient it so that we can image the desired regions.
6. What type of communication system should we employ?
7. What methods do we use to maneuver the satellite.
8. How do we launch the satellite? How much money will it take, who will finance the mission?
Etc!!
Maybe we can hitch a ride with these guys:

Now even in orbit around the earth there may still be sources of noise that may be undesirable, namely satellites. So the ultimate testable prediction
for EBE's are the presence of giant towers on the moon. The first pictures of the far side of the moon were sent back by the Soviet made ZOND-3
satellite moon mission back in 1965, one of the photos suggested the presence of a large tower. The Clementine moon mission by NASA also sent back
photos that show signs of tampering by NASA to cover up what appears to be large artificial structures on the moon. Now the prediction is that there
are large towers on the moon (some estimates put them at 80-100 miles high!), the way we test it is by sending a satellite around the moon to image
the regions where the towers may be.

1. If towers exist on the moon then it is very difficult to explain them away as natural geologic phenomena, though we may have to do research to
determine the chances that such a tower could be formed geologically, if at all.
2. If the ZOND-3 images are accurate then it would prove that the towers existed before NASA sent people to the moon in 1968-69.
3. Since all the moon missions where broadcast publicly (as far as we know) we can easily determine the number of people who have been to the moon and
the equipment they carried and left behind, thereby ruling out human construction of the tower. Hoaxes are impossible (if we take our OWN data, with
our OWN equipment)
In this case the noise is almost zero, if the towers do exist then it is nearly impossible they are a result of natural phenomena, there are very few
human made vehicles around or on the moon, and hoaxes are nearly impossible. If the UFO community can establish the existence of these towers, it will
prove that EBE's exist and have visited the moon.

In order for the experiment to be valid, the prediction needs to satisfy the following two (logically equivalent) conditions:

1) It follows logically from the hypothesis, so that if the hypothesis is true, the prediction must also be true. This condition is necessary in
order for a positive result to support the hypothesis.

2) Because it is a logical consequence of the hypothesis, if the prediction is false, the hypothesis must also be false. This is necessary in order
for a negative result to refute the hypothesis.

Towers on the moon are not a logical consequence of the existence of ETs. ETs could exist without having built towers on the moon. It is (almost)
certainly true that if there are towers on the moon, then ETs exist, but it's the reverse of that which would need to be true in order for the
experiment to be valid. (the reverse being: if ETs exist, then towers are on the moon)

I don't mean to be difficult, your proposition isn't a bad idea. I have to challenge you on the scienific validity of your claim because you seem
interested in a fairly rigorous consideration of the issue and I share that interest.

I should have been more careful with my words, though logically speaking it is true that if towers exist on the moon it does not prove that ET's
exist, the origin of the towers (if found) must have an explanation, and since it is highly probable that humans in our current time did not build the
towers we must have some explanation as to who or what did build them.

I view this more like a scientific theory rather than a mathematical proof, if an experiment contradicts the predictions of the theory then the theory
is most certainly false, but if an experiment is in accordance with the theory it doesn't prove that the theory is true.

If we make a list of all possible causes for the existence of the towers on the moon, then among them will be geologic processes, humans, ET's, etc.
Since we can effectively rule out geologic processes and humans, then the probability for the existence of ET's is much higher, though NOT 100%, this
is primarily due to the fact that we have incomplete information as to all possible causes of the towers.

The biggest problem with nearly all past ET evidence is that we could never fully rule out the human cause or natural phenomena. Whether it be
archeological evidence, or writings, or photographs, or videos, a skeptic could always argue (and with good reason) that it is all a product of the
human imagination, caused by humans, or natural phenomena. The reason why this mission is so valuable is that it effectively rules out humans and
natural phenomena as causes, hence it raises the probability of the existence of ET's much much higher than before.

The only thing that worries me about the mission is that earthly powers may try to sabotage the mission, by sabotaging the satellite, shooting it
down, jamming our communication signal, intercepting our signal and rebroadcasting the signal with fake data and making it seem as if it comes from
around the moon, or even other measures that we haven't though about.

Though it is true that if the moon towers exist it does not prove 100% that ET's exist, it does significantly raise the probability that ET's exist.
If moon towers exist, then they must have a purpose (assuming that whoever or whatever built the towers thinks somewhat like humans) if so they might
still be in use. So if moon towers are discovered along with other large artificial structures and we wait long enough, we might be able to see
activity around the structures. If there is activity, then depending on the capabilities of the optical system we might be able to catch a glimpse of
whoever or whatever is on the moon, at that point the evidence may be undeniable and we may have nearly proven the existence of ET's.

We could have activity on the moon without the existence of the artificial structures, but these structures, if they exist, serve as starting points
that maximize the probability of recording ET activity.

Another consequence of the possible existence of moon towers is, if they are 50-100 miles high then we should be able to see them from earth under
favorable conditions with a good telescope. There are some issues relating to our ability to view the towers from the earth, since we may be looking
at the towers head on or from an angle above the towers, they may look flattened or show very different characteristics from how we think towers
should look.

The smallest object resolvable on the moon, with an average telescope, under ideal conditions is about 2.4 miles across. In practice it is larger due
to irregularities, yet this is enough resolution to discern the moon towers. With a telescope array even smaller objects can be resolved:

Granted the resolution is not too good, but there are indications of moon towers.

So let's put all the evidence for moon towers together:

1. Satellite images from Zond-3, Clementine, etc give clear indications of moon towers.
2. Images from the Apollo mission and non-official testimony from Apollo astronauts also give indications of moon towers.
3. We can see what appears to be moon towers from earth with a good telescope under favorable conditions.

Now we can image with a telescope array to increase resolution, we can also image the moon with radar, and possibly with lasers, all of these can
serve as intermediary steps to sending a moon tower mission.

With all this evidence it is only a matter of time before a mission is sent to image these regions or explore these regions with a moon rover. The
team or country that does send a mission and finds clear, unassailable evidence for moon towers, will probably make much money, but also make one of
the greatest discoveries in all of human history.
3.

Now it may be possible to view the towers with a regular telescope, though the resolution may be limited by many factors. We can increase the
resolution greatly if we can attain access to professional telescopes, like the Keck 1 or Keck 2 telescopes in Hawaii, or the world's most powerful
telescope the Large Binocular Telescope in Arizona.

The hunt for potential moon towers will be greatly aided and given some level credibility if we can view potential moon towers in great detail with
professional telescopes.

Though powerful telescopes and satellite images may support the moon tower hypothesis, they cannot provide unassailable evidence, since skeptics could
always argue that it is trick of light and shadow, pixelation, pareidolia, atmosphere problems,
telescope issues etc. One way to overcome this is to land a moon rover with a high quality camera, near one of these potential moon towers. If moon
towers exist and are within range of the moon rover and the moon rover drives right up to the base of the tower, then at that point the evidence is
unassailable. It can't be a trick of light and shadow, pixelations, or pareidolia, when the rover actually touches the tower it is challenging to say
it isn't there.

We may have to start small meaning we may have to view the moon through the most powerful telescopes in our vicinity, many colleges have access to
telescopes more powerful and at less cost than could be bought in the store. So we can view the moon through those telescopes and make a list of
potential moon tower sites. Then, hopefully we can gain access to more and more powerful telescopes modifying the moon tower list as we go along, the
ultimate would be to view the moon through the Keck 1, Keck 2, or the Large Binocular Telescope in Arizona.

At this point, areas of the moon that show the highest probability of moon towers will be selected, then the planning of the mission, construction of
the satellites, and the rovers will begin. It is probably a good idea to have different teams in different countries (just in case), also it is a good
idea to send several satellites and rovers, just in case one or some of them fail.

Now, for the triple threat, three forms of evidence for the moon towers:

1. We should attain access to powerful telescopes.

2. The mission should be timed so that as the satellites arrive at the purported moon tower position(s), and the rovers land, the weather over said
telescopes is perfect, it is nighttime, full moon, purported moon tower(s) can be seen.

3. Right as the rovers arrive at the purported moon towers, the satellites should be imaging the region from different angles.

So we have three forms of evidence, telescopes, satellite images, and rovers. At, that point the evidence will be unassailable.

Private telescopes may aid in the identification and selection of potential moon tower sites. The benefits of a private telescope are convenience and
flexibility of use though they can get very expensive very fast, the following link discusses the most powerful telescope you can buy:

It may be advisable to construct durable rovers and satellites so that they can serve as observational outposts on the moon. So just in case they do
find artificial structures on the moon, they will durable enough so they can send back pictures for months or years, this way if the artificial
structures are still in use the rovers and satellites may be able to to send back images of whoever or whatever may still be using them!!

The ET researcher would be most interested in observing potential ET vehicles, so the satellites may have to be modified to carry an HD video recorder
with much memory, high bandwidth transmitter, and solar panels large enough to power the recorder and transmitter.

As for designing the communications systems the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) has much practical experience in building and operating radio
communication devices:

There are many ARRL affiliated clubs around the United States. The great advantage of the ARRL is that they have practical experience in building
communications systems, so they can teach you how to make your own communications systems, quickly, reliably, and without much cost.

The most challenging portion of the satellite design, will probably be designing and programming the digital control systems to translate radio
signals into commands for the HD video recorder and the digital control systems to translate digital HD video output signals into radio signals. This
falls under the category of Digital signal processing. Digital design is critical in the operation of moon rovers and moon satellites.

There are ways to get around having to program the HD controller chip directly, e.g. (design a device that simply presses a button on an HD camera)
but the challenge of transmitting the HD video and pictures still remains, most HD cameras have an HDMI output and sometimes an analog output. The
digital outputs usually require programming knowledge of the interface (you have to know the protocols, commands, etc of the HDMI interface, etc).
There may be ways around this, since many HD cameras also have an analog output which does not require programming knowledge and may be easier to
transmit, though it will be lower quality than HD. Another consideration is that a fully built HD video recorder was designed for use under average
terrestrial conditions on earth. The temperature and pressure changes on the moon may affect a fully built HD video recorder adversely.

Another issue in transmission is that errors may occur when transmitting, especially when the rover is so far away, this may necessitate the use of
digitial transmission protocols, error correction, etc, which requires more programming knowledge. An alternative is to use analog transmission it is
easier to design, though it may require more bandwidth and more power than digital transmission, to achieve desired signal quality.

The entire design of a moon satellite or rover with advanced capabilities falls in the category of mechatronics:

Though mechatronics is challenging is it within the grasp of many universities. Next time I'll address the more challenging portions of the satellite
or rover design, interfacing the HD video recorder to the radio communications device.

These kits are ideal since they allow enough flexibility to be part of a rover or satellite, without the challenge of having to design a circuit
board, select the processing chips, select the sensor, etc.

Most companies that offer such kits usually also offer software to program the kits.

Both cameras mentioned in the stretchinc.com websites have an ethernet output, so it may be possible to transmit that via radio back to earth.
Ethernet to radio devices exist, but whether this can extended from the earth to moon needs more research:

I think I have found a way to make one of the simplest, no-frills, workable moon rover or satellite. Actually the inspiration came from Radio
Controlled cars and airplanes, by now you might have guessed it, yes use the simple technology from Radio controlled cars and airplanes on your moon
rover or satellite.

RC cars are similar to moon rovers and satellites though far more basic. Despite this, you might be able to build a moon rover similar to an RC car
(though with parts made to withstand the conditions on the moon) and it might even be possible to somehow install a camera to send back images and
video. You will have to test the design to make sure that all the components can withstand the conditions on the moon.

It will most likely be necessary to modify the radio controls to be able to communicate with the earth, this may not be all that difficult. Here is a
link:

It may seem juvenile, but it might just work. This is far easier that having to learn all the programming and mathematics to learn just the basics of
mechatronics. Next time, I'll focus on building the other components necessary to house the rover or satellite while it's on it way to the moon.

The high temperature is about 123 C or 250 F, higher than the boiling point of water (near the earth's surface), the low temperature is about -233 C
or -120 F. The temperature difference between light and shadow can be about 300C.

This is why it is critical to test each component of the rover to make sure it can withstand such extremes. Insulation can help lessen the shock to
the electronics as the temperatures fluctuate, but it cannot keep the temperature constant for long.

There are books that can aid in the construction of rovers and satellites:

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.